Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Obama's Supreme Court Pick

I don't know much about much, especially this Selma Bouvier look-alike that Obama has nominated.

Critics have brought some interesting criticisms of her record. But you know what irritates me? Pundits saying that it's more important to court the hispanic vote than to thoroughly vett (or is it vet?) her.

5 comments:

1) Bush & Cheney's service is maximized at 8 years. A SCOTUS judge sits on the bench for the rest of his/her life.

2) B&C are elected. By definition of a democracy, we trust the public to make an educated decision.

This being said, even though I'm not fans of Bush & Cheney, since I don't believe that they truly espoused conservative philosophies (especially fiscally conservative), I'd vote for them in a heartbeat over Gore and over Kerry. Unfortunately, more often than not, the vote for president is the least of two evils.

Christians, by very definition, are ideological and theological. This is the reason I dismiss McLaren's "emerging" movement completely. The post-modern view of life is way too relativistic. And you cannot base your worldview on a reaction, which I do believe he does. (the reaction being towards the religious right and judemental evangelicalism).

To the issue at hand:

Isn't there a difference between calling a behaviour/action racist and calling an individual a racist?

I'm not ready to call Sotomayer a racist, but you cannot deny that her comments about a female latina being more gifted to make judicial decisions because of her racial and gender background is simply that...racist. If a white man made the same comments, come on, what would the reaction be?

Why can't you call a spade a spade? It may be going too far to call Sotomayer a racist (who knows--I just know of this one comment), but it's not too far to call her comments racist.

Consider an athlete--they make a bad play once in a while, but that doesn't make him a bad player, unless it's consistent (like the entire Maple Leafs team!! :-) ).

In terms of Sotomayer, when you combine her racial remarks with her more notorious judicial decisions**, why is it surprising that some folks find her to be a troublesome nominee?

Of course there are those (on both sides) who will oppose anyone the other side proposes. But a thorough vetting process is necessary for every nominee.

**Caveat: I neither support nor oppose this nomination...yet. I need to read more from both sides before making a decision.